__ ___. -_ ._........n..... .....,.-..........u ur mm.-mmn u-new court? or KARNATAKA HIGH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH A"? GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF GCFOBER,'V2_(j{}8:' ~
EEFGRE
THE HGNBLE: MR. JUSTICE} "A.5--£T a.;".c.«z.;§1$i;:;éx'z,,_
WRIT PETITION N0 13309?.Q1¥§.A2£io5JT{LEé)-~ . «. ”
BETWEEN:
1 Peersab
since deceased byhis %
2:) Sim. Bi V .
aged zfl”+3ut’}:f3O Yt€.ar=’57 4′
b) Bismij1ah”_’1§§{1véé1b
aged.” a’fiQ_u1: years_,
Both a:’evAg$’ii:1;ltT1;1’iL3_tS; _ ‘
Rm ‘Kudigé
BasavanavBag¢wad’i…Taluk,
Bfiapaur, _ V ‘ V’
Bijapzm Disf; . ….. .. «
Vg:} ” Jumahi«£3’egum Anwar Mamadapur
years,
W ‘R/0 Rajaiialneen Darga,
‘;!3i}a__puJf«–DistI’ict,
Bijapgr.
Petitioners.
fay’ sri rm. Ma1iPati1, Adv.)
” ‘2 The Lané Tribunal
Basasvana Bagewadi,
By its Secretary,
\H”‘1fN”\ l..Jc\IlI I-l’\l\..lII_JlI\iL.l|II ..
…1……….\.-. rnun wuum or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA men
2. Learnad counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that as on the date when the ap§1icagt5§Qf:._Vi.n
form No.7 was ffied i.e., on 31.12.19?4,
applicant Bhimappa Managali was not ., ‘v
copy of the cieath extract is made,avajkibiep§it A;’if1:,}g;IfijAA
D. Hence 3. contention is takgzn t1iaf:”‘i:}f1¢ in
farm No.7 is fabricated.
3. The c0I1£€stii1g_…. ” served and
unrepresentgéi, _. . ”
4. There a§3pr:ar_s’1;o’ confusion as :0 who has
filed the”a§Sp1icé;tibf3; f0§i1f£ No.3′ on 31.12.l9′?4, in as
fl1ucI:;”a!s:, it disclose that the LTM beiongs to
“B.eerappa Managaii 1.63., the Grignai
%agp2i¢én: Beerappa Iifiximaraya Managuli who
VV _ has ‘ée:)me:Avbi1 :’ecord as iegai representative. Indeed the
is Iequired ta) consider as ta the
‘. é’_gé;–V1!’£iizifeness of the ap§1icati0:1 and as to who had flied
VT application. Necessary enquiry is required to be
‘Adana. It is no doubt {true that there is considerable
/
fl
HQIH \’I\iH’E\-{kiln-l’\i _Ir\ l\.Il’|r\I’I. -so-um
